Rush does some interesting things with the scope of a bio-pic, but eventually just gets trampled down by the same cliches and beats that the genre typically embraces. The movie’s advertising leading up to it strangely focused more on Chris Hemsworth than it did Daniel Bruhl, as they were if anything equally, with Bruhl probably being the bigger main character. Now, I’m not stupid, I know why Hemsworth, he the big star of Thor and The Avengers was the pre-dominant piece of marketing, but it largely documented a film that does not exist.
It’s sort of like a co-bio-pic, where the film follows the events of a couple years in the F1 racing circuit that often pits Hemsworth’s James Hunt and Bruhl’s Niki Lauda against each other. For all intents and purposes Lauda is the good guy and Hunt the bad guy, opposing forces against each other and ones who would see their relationship on a sliding scale. I enjoyed this fact that we weren’t so much focused on one side of the events or perspective, but it tried to cover the motivations of both sides equally. While in theory this was a great idea, it eventually just devolved into typical genre fare.
Now, I know how Hollywood movies work and especially these kinds, but it’s depressing seeing all these typical marks hit because Ron Howard and company believe they have to do them because of the genre of film. Both characters have hardships with girlfriends, a tragic event shapes both of their lives and relation to each other, the “bad” guy in Hemsworth provides sympathy late in the film to Bruhl, they dislike each other but have mutual respect, the pronouncements of doom come true, I could go on, but I’m sure you’re all well aware of these trite happenings that seem to occur a lot in these types of films.